• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do you come here? (To atheists)

ellenjanuary

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
Meow Mix said:
No, lack of belief when there's also a lack of justification for that belief is epistemological consistency for the rational.

Also, Patty isn't under fire for lacking belief but for using bizarre definitions.
Click to expand...
Can always trust a philosopher to use more words than necessary. :p

You can always just say, ellen, you don't know what the heck you are talking about! :D

Because when it comes to philosophy, that's usually a safe generalization. But Patty is Patty. If she says she's an atheist, I'm gonna take her word for it. Arguing who is an atheist and who is not an atheist smacks of that "true Christian" nonsense that rears its ugly head once in a while. But you are right... this is a debate forum, have at it. ;)
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
ellenjanuary said:
Can always trust a philosopher to use more words than necessary. :p

You can always just say, ellen, you don't know what the heck you are talking about! :D

Because when it comes to philosophy, that's usually a safe generalization. But Patty is Patty. If she says she's an atheist, I'm gonna take her word for it. Arguing who is an atheist and who is not an atheist smacks of that "true Christian" nonsense that rears its ugly head once in a while. But you are right... this is a debate forum, have at it. ;)
Click to expand...

Well the simple fact is that either Patty is using an unconventional definition of the word "atheist" or she's contradicting herself as much as I would if I stated "I am a horse."

If she's using an unconventional definition then it's pretty dubious to use it without saying so, especially when she has the reasonable expectation that most people on the boards are using the general definition of atheism as being without belief that theism is true.

Using words to mean other things (especially contradictory things to their everyday usage) without warning, especially when they're common words, is extremely counterproductive in my opinion.

It reminds me of this ridiculous scene from Through the Looking Glass:

Lewis Carroll said:
`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him.

`I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents -- '

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

`They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

`Ah, you should see `em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: `for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)
Click to expand...
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Meow Mix said:
It's bizarre to define atheism in such a way that you can believe in god(s). I doubt you seriously didn't already know this though.
Click to expand...
I'm just a person who believes that when "belief" isn't an option, it cannot be the significant part of any distinction. Do you believe in ice cream? You hold a concretized image of ice cream, concretized by reality, and hence satisified in reality. Does it make sense to think of ice cream in terms of whether you believe in it? --no, because you hold that firmly concretized image. What of the person who has never seen ice cream, tasted or smelled smelled ice cream, felt it melt in their hands, or held ice cream to their ear to see if it makes any noise? They hold no image of ice cream --it's just a formless word. They have nothing concrete in which to invest belief.

The definition that holds to "lack belief in the existence of any god" holds to no image of god. The reason for lacking an image isn't important (although many will try to rest definition on a justification, almost as if the latter came first) --it's not part of the definition. The definition that holds to belief that "no deity exists" stems from the same root --without an image of god, there is nothing in which to invest belief, and therefore nothing to deify. When god is held beyond its image (as many philosophical belief categorgizations do, including branches of monism, monotheism, polytheism, and mysticism) there can be a 'no image of god' in which to invest belief.
 
Last edited:
tarasan

tarasan

Well-Known Member
because we love them and want them to come?

how dull would this palce be without athiests in it?

doesnt bare thinking about
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Willamena said:
I'm just a person who believes that when "belief" isn't an option, it cannot be the significant part of any distinction. Do you believe in ice cream? You hold a concretized image of ice cream, concretized by reality, and hence satisified in reality. Does it make sense to think of ice cream in terms of whether you believe in it? --no, because you hold that firmly concretized image. What of the person who has never seen ice cream, tasted or smelled smelled ice cream, felt it melt in their hands, or held ice cream to their ear to see if it makes any noise? They hold no image of ice cream --it's just a formless word. They have nothing concrete in which to invest belief.

The definition that holds to "lack belief in the existence of any god" holds to no image of god. The reason for lacking an image isn't important (although many will try to rest definition on a justification, almost as if the latter came first) --it's not part of the definition. The definition that holds to belief that "no deity exists" stems from the same root --without an image of god, there is nothing in which to invest belief, and therefore nothing to deify. When god is held beyond its image (as many philosophical belief categorgizations do, including branches of monism, monotheism, polytheism, and mysticism) there can be a 'no image of god' in which to invest belief.
Click to expand...

This is easily resolvable.

With a yes or no answer, do you believe in the ontological existence of one or more deities?

If yes, you're theist.

If no, you're atheist.

Since this is a true dichotomy, there is no wiggle room for mystispeak.
 
ellenjanuary

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
Even if the forgoing analyses are correct, it is important to note that no argument has been given for the conclusion that no ontological argument can be successful. Even if all of the kinds of arguments produced to date are pretty clearly unsuccessful—i.e., not such as ought to give non-theists reason to accept the conclusion that God exists—it remains an open question whether there is some other kind of hitherto undiscovered ontological argument which does succeed. (Perhaps it is worth adding here that there is fairly widespread consensus, even amongst theists, that no known ontological arguments for the existence of God are persuasive. Most categories of ontological argument have some actual defenders; but none has a large following.)

~from Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I think we're all atheists. :D
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
AntEmpire said:
If you don't believe in god, or subscribe to a religion... why come to a religious forum to take time from your god-less life and discuss religion?
















(Post Script: Ant Empire is agnostic-atheist, so yeah, not trying to be offensive, I've been asked this question (Been jumping around religious forums for a while) just wondering how you'll react, or if you will. Maybe you'd never thought about it like that..?)
Click to expand...

We get asked this question about once a month, and many of us are tired of it. I suggest you take some time to acquaint yourself with the forum, its goals and rules, and you may find your answer there. If not, search any one of the 100 or so threads on the question.
 
jmvizanko

jmvizanko

Uber Tool
Willamena said:
The definition that holds to "lack belief in the existence of any god" holds to no image of god.
Click to expand...

Um, wouldn't it be more correct to replace the word "no" in this sentence with "any?"

God is not a meaningless word, just as ice cream is not, to somebody that has never seen either one. They have definitions. If I had never had ice cream and I read the definition of the word, I could believe that sounds possible to be made, and of course I'd probably want some.

God can mean a lot of different things, but when somebody puts forward their description you either believe that such a thing exists or you don't. So what is the god you believe exists and how does that not make you a theist?
 
T

Twiglet04

New Member
Willamena said:
I'm just a person who believes that when "belief" isn't an option, it cannot be the significant part of any distinction. Do you believe in ice cream? You hold a concretized image of ice cream, concretized by reality, and hence satisified in reality. Does it make sense to think of ice cream in terms of whether you believe in it? --no, because you hold that firmly concretized image. What of the person who has never seen ice cream, tasted or smelled smelled ice cream, felt it melt in their hands, or held ice cream to their ear to see if it makes any noise? They hold no image of ice cream --it's just a formless word. They have nothing concrete in which to invest belief.

The definition that holds to "lack belief in the existence of any god" holds to no image of god. The reason for lacking an image isn't important (although many will try to rest definition on a justification, almost as if the latter came first) --it's not part of the definition. The definition that holds to belief that "no deity exists" stems from the same root --without an image of god, there is nothing in which to invest belief, and therefore nothing to deify. When god is held beyond its image (as many philosophical belief categorgizations do, including branches of monism, monotheism, polytheism, and mysticism) there can be a 'no image of god' in which to invest belief.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top